If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Listen...if you own a large breed dog...Pit bull, Doberman, Lab, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, etc. then you should own it responsibly. You aren't saving anyone's life by targeting a specific breed and saying that it's a born killer so we should get rid of it. You get rid of that breed and there will be another one in line...and getting rid of a breed that has tons of information about it not being dangerous is even dumber. If you are trying to get rid of dog bites by getting rid of pit bulls then you are horribly misguided.

AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!! AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!! AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!! AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!! AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!! AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!! AwwWwWwWwWWW.....I thought it gonBE HE MAN!!!!!!

Most news stories obtain their Pro-BSL statistics from dogsbite.org. As noted above, Colleen Lynn started this anti-pitbull blog in 2007 as a result of what she decribed as a vicious pit bull attack. PBLN has previously reported on the evolution of this preventable accident into the myth of vicious pit bull attack. Initially, Lynn compiled her dog bite data from a study done by Merritt Clifton. Nobody has any idea what his raw data was, and none of his statistics are consistent with what independent peer reviewed research shows. He has no qualifications to do scientific research into dog behavior. Out of all the dog bite reports and information available in 2008, including the CDC and AVMA, Lynn chose Merritt Clifton's self published unscientific and uncredentialed report? Yes. It is the only report that agrees with the agenda of DBO.

If you look at my previous posts you'll know I'm one of the "don't blame the breed" posters, and I'm COMPLETELY ok with this. If this means all the irresponsible PoS asshole owners can't abuse them anymore, and the current responsible owners can keep theirs, then this is worth applauding. They really should however extend it to all power breeds, considering those PoS asshole owners will only move on to the next best thing. I view this is as saving the breed

still my overlying ideology on this issue. Nip it in the bud if nothing more than for the sake of all the dogs that would be abused in the future

Listen...if you own a large breed dog...Pit bull, Doberman, Lab, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, etc. then you should own it responsibly. You aren't saving anyone's life by targeting a specific breed and saying that it's a born killer so we should get rid of it. You get rid of that breed and there will be another one in line...and getting rid of a breed that has tons of information about it not being dangerous is even dumber. If you are trying to get rid of dog bites by getting rid of pit bulls then you are horribly misguided.

Pit bulls are misunderstood, especially by relatives of those people who've been mauled by them.

Both studies conclude that pit-bull types accounted for most severe bites.

Other bites that aren't severe (ones in controlled studies) are mostly yip-yap dogs - not necessarily dangerous but annoying as fuck.

Then they basically say that they don't want to be involved in the discussion policy-wise because of the owner stigma and lack of breed stabilization.

If I were a pit-bull breeder, I'd try to establish new pedigree guidelines with breeders across the US and reign in the breed. Variability, in this case, is not a good thing. Maybe instead of trying to make it a non-issue, the pit-bull community should distance itself away from the owner stigma.

and on top of that because some prefer their looks the same way some may prefer labs or jack russells or dalmations, because they think they're "cuter." I for one can't stand the way labs look. The most plain ugly dog in the world imo. Yet it seems most people in the world think they're absolutely adorable. Is that really too much to understand, triggered?

Both studies conclude that pit-bull types accounted for most severe bites.

Other bites that aren't severe (ones in controlled studies) are mostly yip-yap dogs - not necessarily dangerous but annoying as fuck.

Then they basically say that they don't want to be involved in the discussion policy-wise because of the owner stigma and lack of breed stabilization.

If I were a pit-bull breeder, I'd try to establish new pedigree guidelines with breeders across the US and reign in the breed. Variability, in this case, is not a good thing. Maybe instead of trying to make it a non-issue, the pit-bull community should distance itself away from the owner stigma.

Actually German Shepherds make the list more, but the bite studies are beside the point...as the AVMA points out that many times pit bulls cannot be properly identified visually and that witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is a pit bull(i.e. the many false reports from dgbite.org). That sums up the problem with any bite study. You have to rely on the people reporting and as you can see in the previous link I posted many times those people say whatever they want.

Meanwhile, I will continue to rely on more concrete data:

-the statement from the AVMA that says "controlled studies have not
identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."

-tests done by the ATTS that show pit bulls pass at rate of almost 87%(better than Golden Retrievers).

Find me some information about the actual breed being dangerous that can disprove these two things and get back to me.

-the statement from the AVMA that says "controlled studies have not
identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous."

/thread

Controlled studies. What about non-controlled? You know...something called real life. The data of bite hierarchy doesn't lie. Thats four different sources with pit bulls on top of severe attacks with two of them you consider from valid institutions. Still you say you don't believe them.

Disproportionately is a loaded term that means "Eh, we don't want to get involved. Yeah they're on top, but there's more to it."

Sorry man, but it seems like nothing's going to get through your head that pit bulls maul people. I guess there's reason for that since its a personal issue for you. Same for others on this site who are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Any breed of dog can be dangerous in the hands of a stupid owner. Smart people choose pits because they love dogs or the breed; stupid people choose pits for some kind of stupid person manufactured "status" or to exploit the dog. The obvious study that needs to be done is what percentage of attacks are carried out by pets of stupid owners vs. pets of smart owners.

Pit-Bull owners may want to check their homeowners policy & to see if they are covered if their dog bites someone…In Cali insurance companies like All-State will not insure homeowners who have Pit-Bulls…To me that speaks volumes about the breed…

You do realize the list is by country right? We're talking the US here. Go back and recount. Look at the source as well - severe attacks, hospital visits and fatalities are what we're talking about.

So different countries make dogs more aggressive? lol.

Controlled studies. What about non-controlled? You know...something called real life. The data of bite hierarchy doesn't lie. Thats four different sources with pit bulls on top of severe attacks with two of them you consider from valid institutions. Still you say you don't believe them.

Disproportionately is a loaded term that means "Eh, we don't want to get involved. Yeah they're on top, but there's more to it."

Sorry man, but it seems like nothing's going to get through your head that pit bulls maul people. I guess there's reason for that since its a personal issue for you. Same for others on this site who are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Pit-Bull owners may want to check their homeowners policy & to see if they are covered if their dog bites someone…In Cali insurance companies like All-State will not insure homeowners who have Pit-Bulls…To me that speaks volumes about the breed…

That also speaks volumes about the insurance company.....State Farm does not discriminate against certain breeds. On their site their spokesman, Jeff McCollum, says that "there are good and bad dogs within each breed, just like there are responsible and irresponsible dog owners."

I don't trust pit bulls. When I was younger I had a friend who's mom owned a kennel and would bring various dogs home while they found a permament home for them. At one point she had a pit bull and a pug. Both super sweet dogs, got along great. Then one day she came home from the store to find pug guts all over her living room. That pit bull ripped it to fuckin shreds.

That also speaks volumes about the insurance company.....State Farm does not discriminate against certain breeds. On their site their spokesman, Jeff McCollum, says that "there are good and bad dogs within each breed, just like there are responsible and irresponsible dog owners."

That’s not the complete story…The list of insurance companies that will insure a dangerous breed of dog is very short…You will also make up for it with higher premiums…

There is no point in arguing with the anti-pit crowd. Trust me, I used to do the same thing on this board. Having owned pits for over ten years I can say the only thing I do now is let my Pit's actions speak for themselves. Every single person that has met them, some weary at first, has fallen in love with them. Many want or have gotten their own pits after meeting mine. My brother and parents both own pits now after being scared of them thanks to the media. Until the media stops their biased reporting (and thugs quit owning them) pits will have a bad rap. I just say fuck it now, I know my pits are wonderful dogs, no reason to try and convince someone otherwise, they'll simply find out when they meet my dogs.

Yeah...I know. I'm done here. I have supported my defense for the breed with facts and not hearsay driven or manipulated bite stats. I have my own ownership history and the history of others...plus tons of notable people who own them and have not been attacked. Cesar Millan has tons of them and still seems to be doing quite well after all these years.

Nothing really left to say. Believe in the pit bull boogeyman if you want. I choose the truth.

"The test simulates a casual walk through a park or neighborhood where everyday life situations are encountered. During this walk, the dog experiences visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. Neutral, friendly and threatening situations are encountered, calling into play the dog’s ability to distinguish between non-threatening situations and those calling for watchful and protective reactions."

What happens when the dog isn't on a leash or the owner isn't present? A dog's temperment certainly doesn't change when it's on its own property, does it? Do they beat the dog during the test to see what it does? Who cares, they're more tempermental than Goldies!

-----------
Personally, I could see any dog failing the shit out that test, mine included. It seems that owners who train their dogs specifically for that test are more likely to include them in the study. You sign up to test your dog. It's not a random sample by any means.